leading a life of shame； we have a peculiar ethical standard difficult
for Western minds to appreciate。 Yet in such an instance as is
described in 〃Auld Robin Gray；〃 we see precisely the same code； the
girl； to benefit her parents； marries a rich old man she does not
lovewhich is to lead a life of shame。 The ethical view which
justifies this； puts the benefit of parents above the benefit of
children； robs the daughter of happiness and motherhood； injures
posterity to assist ancestors。
This is one of the products of that very early religion； ancestor
worship； and here we lay a finger on a distinctly masculine influence。
We know little of ethical values during the matriarchate； whatever they
were； they must have depended for sanction on a cult of promiscuous but
efficient maternity。 Our recorded history begins in the patriarchal
period； and it is its ethics alone which we know。
The mother instinct； throughout nature； is one of unmixed devotion； of
love and service； care and defence； with no self…interest。 The animal
father； in such cases as he is of service to the young； assists the
mother in her work in similar fashion。 But the human father in the
family with the male head soon made that family an instrument of desire；
and combat； and self…expression； following the essentially masculine
impulses。 The children were his； and if males； valuable to serve and
glorify him。 In his dominance over servile women and helpless children；
free rein was given to the growth of pride and the exercise of
irresponsible tyranny。 To these feelings； developed without check for
thousands of years； and to the mental habits resultant； it is easy to
trace much of the bias of our early ethical concepts。
Perhaps it is worth while to repeat here that the effort of this book is
by no means to attribute a wholly evil influence to men； and a wholly
good one to women； it is not even claimed that a purely feminine culture
would have advanced the world more successfully。 It does claim that the
influence of the two together is better than that of either one alone；
and in especial to point out what special kind of injury is due to the
exclusive influence of one sex heretofore。
We have to…day reached a degree of human development where both men and
women are capable of seeing over and across the distinctions of sex； and
mutually working for the advancement of the world。 Our progress is；
however； seriously impeded by what we may call the masculine tradition；
the unconscious dominance of a race habit based on this long
androcentric period； and it is well worth while； in the interests of
both sexes； to show the mischievous effects of the predominance of one。
We have in our ethics not only a 〃double standard〃 in one special line；
but in nearly all。 Man； as a sex； has quite naturally deified his own
qualities rather than those of his opposite。 In his codes of manners；
of morals； of laws； in his early concepts of God； his ancient religions；
we see masculinity written large on every side。 Confining women wholly
to their feminine functions； he has required of them only what he called
feminine virtues； and the one virtue he has demanded； to the complete
overshadowing of all others； is measured by wholly masculine
requirements。
ln the interests of health and happiness； monogamous marriage proves its
superiority in our race as it has in others。 It is essential to the
best growth of humanity that we practice the virtue of chastity； it is a
human virtue； not a feminine one。 But in masculine hands this virtue
was enforced upon women under penalties of hideous cruelty； and quite
ignored by men。 Masculine ethics； colored by masculine instincts；
always dominated by sex； has at once recognized the value of chastity in
the woman； which is right； punished its absence unfairly； which is
wrong； and then reversed the whole matter when applied to men； which is
ridiculous。
Ethical laws are lawsnot idle notions。 Chastity is a virtue because
it promotes human welfarenot because men happen to prize it in women
and ignore it themselves。 The underlying reason for the whole thing is
the benefit of the child； and to that end a pure and noble fatherhood is
requisite； as well as such a motherhood。 Under the limitations of a too
masculine ethics； we have developed on this one line social conditions
which would be absurdly funny if they were not so horrible。
Religion； be it noticed； does not bear out this attitude。 The immense
human need of religion； the noble human character of the great religious
teachers； has always set its standards； when first established； ahead of
human conduct。
Some there are； men of learning and authority； who hold that the
deadening immobility of our religions； their resistance to progress and
relentless preservation of primitive ideals； is due to the conservatism
of women。 Men； they say； are progressive by nature； women are
conservative。 Women are more religious than men； and so preserve old
religious forms unchanged after men have outgrown them。
If we saw women in absolute freedom； with a separate religion devised by
women； practiced by women； and remaining unchanged through the
centuries； while men； on the other hand； bounded bravely forward； making
new ones as fast as they were needed； this belief might be maintained。
But what do we see？ All the old religions made by men； and forced on
the women whether they liked it or not。 Often women not even considered
as part of the schemedenied soulsgiven a much lower place in the
systemgoing from the service of their father's gods to the service of
their husbandshaving none of their own。 We see religions which make
practically no place for women； as with the Moslem； as rigidly bigoted
and unchanging as any other。
We see also this： that the wider and deeper the religion； the more
human； the more it calls for practical applications in Christianitythe
more it appeals to women。 Further； in the diverging sects of the
Christian religion； we find that its progressiveness is to be measured；
not by the numbers of its women adherents； but by their relative
freedom。 The women of America； who belong to a thousand sects； who
follow new ones with avidity； who even make them； and who also leave
them all as men do； are women； as well as those of Spain； who remain
contented Romanists； but in America the status of women is higher。
The fact is this： a servile womanhood is in a state of arrested
development； and as such does form a ground for the retention of ancient
ideas。 But this is due to the condition of servility； not to womanhood。
That women at present are the bulwark of the older forms of our
religions is due to the action of two classes of men： the men of the
world； who keep women in their restricted position； and the men of the
church； who take every advantage of the limitations of women。 When we
have for the first time in history a really civilized womanhood； we can
then judge better of its effect on religion。
Meanwhile； we can see quite clearly the effect of manhood。 Keeping in
mind those basic masculine impulsesdesire and combatwe see them
reflected from high heaven in their religious concepts。 Reward！
Something to want tremendously and struggle to achieve！ This is a
concept perfectly masculine and most imperfectly religious。 A religion
is partly explanationa theory of life； it is partly emotionan
attitude of mind； it is partly actiona system of morals。 Man's
special effect on this large field of human development is clear。 He
pictured his early gods as like to himself； and they behaved in
accordance with his ideals。 In the dimmest； oldest religions； nearest
the matriarchate； we find great goddessestypes of Motherhood；
Mother…love； Mother…care and Service。 But under masculine dominance；
Isis and Ashteroth dwindle away to an alluring Aphroditenot Womanhood
for the child and the Worldbut the incarnation of female
attractiveness for man。
As the idea of heaven developed in the man's mind it became the Happy
Hunting Ground of the savage； the beery and gory Valhalla of the
Norseman； the voluptuous； many…houri…ed Paradise of the Mohammedan。
These are men's heavens all。 Women have never been so fond of hunting；
beer or blood； and their houris would be of the other kind。 It may be
said that the early Christian idea of heaven is by no means planned for
men。 That is trite； and is perhaps the reason why it has never had so
compelling an attraction for them。
Very early in his vague efforts towards religious expression； man voiced
his second strongest instinctthat of combat。 His universe is always
dual； always a scene of combat。 Born with that impulse； exercising it
continually； he naturally assumed it to be the major process in life。
It is not。 Growth is the major process。 Combat is a useful subsidiary
process； chiefly valuable for its initial use； to transmit the physical
superiority of the victor。 Psychic and social advantages are not thus
secured or transmitted。
In no one particular is the androcentric character of our common thought
more clearly shown than in the general deification of what are now
described as 〃conflict stimuli。〃 That whi